Star Spangled Staggers

US politics from outside the beltway

Mitt Romney's Palin-esque ignorance of Middle East politics

Suggests that Palestinians are the aggressors and Israel is a state desiring no more than its own security.

By David Wearing Published 19 September 2012 15:03

Mitt Romney delivers a speech outside Jerusalem's Old City. Photograph: Getty Images

In yesterday’s leaked video Mitt Romney gave two reasons for his view that the Israeli-Palestinian situation should be left unresolved indefinitely. First, the Palestinians reject peace and are committed to the destruction of Israel. Second, the Palestinians will never agree to the Israeli military presence that will be required in their future state to prevent Iranian infiltration via, for example, the Palestine-Jordan or Palestine-Syria borders.

What will hurt Romney in electoral terms is his Palin-esque ignorance of the basics. The West Bank does not share a border with Syria, and the Palestine-Jordan border seems an unlikely site of Iranian infiltration given that Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and has neither an alliance nor warm relations with Tehran. Expect Romney’s opponents to feed this into the wider case that he is “not ready for prime time”.

What should hurt Romney - but is unlikely to given the way discussion of this topic is framed in US politics - is his attempt to portray the Palestinians as the aggressors and Israel as a state desiring no more than its own security. The core of the issue, in reality, is the Israeli occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land in flagrant violation of international law, and Israel’s denial, for decades, of the Palestinians’ right to democratic independence in a fully autonomous state.

The illegality of Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land – already widely understood in any event - was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in 2004. In 2002, the Arab League offered Israel full recognition in exchange for its withdrawing from the occupied territories so that the Palestinians could establish their state there. The formula was agreed by the Palestinians, but rejected by Israel. Even Hamas, while formally opposed to such a settlement, has indicated (pdf) that it would accept it if ratified by the Palestinian people, who continue to favour the two-state solution. In any event, no one is stopping Israel from simply relinquishing the stolen land and withdrawing to its legal borders of its own accord.

Romney’s remarks have been portrayed as a departure from the established consensus that the US must work towards a two-state settlement. But it’s unlikely that the Palestinians would perceive much difference between a Romney presidency and the last several administrations. Since the Oslo accords of the early-nineties, Israeli colonisation has grown significantly, while US policy has oscillated between placing no and not very much pressure on Israel to make marginal “concessions” on land. Putting rhetoric aside, the reality of the US position has been that Israel can take most or all of the territory it wants, and the Palestinians can have strictly limited autonomy on the remaining isolated patches. The only exception was a brief moment at the Taba talks in January 2001, when a more viable solution appeared possible, before Israel walked away.

Romney says that "the idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world". However, at issue is not the Palestinians failure “to act” but Washington’s failure to “push on the Israelis to give something up” – specifically, the land it is illegally colonising. The so-called “peace process” has been moribund for a decade because neither George Bush nor Barack Obama were willing to challenge Israeli intransigence. In that context, Romney’s advocacy of “kicking the ball down the field” is no more than an endorsement of the current approach. Israel of course will be delighted with this. The Palestinians, less so.

David Wearing is a postgraduate researcher on British foreign policy in the Middle East at the University of London. Find him on Twitter as @davidwearing.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from David Wearing

View the discussion thread.

19 comments

Fri, 2012-09-21 14:52 — jonnieb57

"David Wearing is a postgraduate researcher on British foreign policy in the Middle East at the University of London"
Well, I certainly dont want to go to this place. How can Mr. Wearing possibly make such obviously disconected and false statements?
Firstly, Mr. Wearing complains about Romney´s incorrect statements, perhaps to grant legitimacy to himself and his views that follow, and then procedes to make ridiculous claims about Isreal being the one to walk out of various negotiations.
Mr. Wearing is obviously taking the first steps in his new career as a fictions writer (non-historically based, naturally).
Others who have commented here have mentioned some of the critical treaty negotiations that were ended to to Arab or Palestinian obstinancy.
Israel is of course insensitive to the real impact of their colonization of lands, but there have also been enough reasons why they have taken such positions, being squeezed in between neighbors, who, at best, show consistent animosity towards the state of Israel.
And for all of you quoting the Bible or other quite old sources - please wake up and realize that we do not live by these exact rules anymore. We have evolved - so perhaps it is time you do so as well.

Tue, 2012-09-25 19:02 — Francine Last (not verified)

There are certain countries in the world that were born of colonisation and Israel and America are two of them. They both became countries by taking land brutally from the indigenous people, simply because they could. Other countries were given back to their native peoples (most of Asia and Africa), but the Americas definitely became colonial settlements. That is probably where Americans identify with Israelis.

Tue, 2012-09-25 19:46 — John Cheese (not verified)

Talk to some Ainu and Aborigines and see if they agree that they got their countries/continents back...

Fri, 2012-09-21 16:53 — jankaas (not verified)

"ridiculous claims about Isreal being the one to walk out of various negotiations."

so you are saying that Israel has not walked away from any negotiations?

"Israel is of course insensitive to the real impact of their colonization of lands, but there have also been enough reasons why they have taken such positions, being squeezed in between neighbors, who, at best, show consistent animosity towards the state of Israel."

so you think that this allows Israel to do as it sees fit? i also think your use of the term "colonization" is telling. these are illegal settlements. why not use the correct terminology Jonnie?

Thu, 2012-09-20 09:47 — Standup (not verified)

I think that if Romney had any real understanding of the world perhaps Adelson and/or AIPAC wouldn't have chosen him to run the US. Surely only a malleable fool could really be trusted with Israels short sighted aims of grabbing as much Palestinian land as they can get their state funded settler's hands on whilst trying to figure out a way to get rid of their remaining Palestinian residents. I would blame the right wing, but in Israel it seems even the left are right wing!

Thu, 2012-09-20 08:29 — shucks (not verified)

Is the author of the piece for real? He says the Israelis walked away from Taba! Er no, the Israelis accepted the Clinton brokered deal and Arafat then rejected it, as he rejected every other proposal over the previous months. The author is either lying or simply knows nothing about the subject. The fact is the Palestinians have rejected every possible peace agreement since 1947. Romney was absolutely spot on.

Thu, 2012-09-20 10:41 — David Wearing1

Predictably enough, someone tries the line that Israel hasn't ended its illegal colonisation project because Arafat wouldn't let them. Noam Chomsky dismantles that tired old talking point very well in a piece called "Reshaping History" published by Al Ahram, which you can Google (NS site not letting me post links)

Thu, 2012-09-20 04:24 — John Cheese (not verified)

Shouldn't our magic Nobel President have worked all this out already? You know, solved the 6,000 year old hatred & arguments in his first year?

Tue, 2012-09-25 19:14 — Francine Last (not verified)

There are more Jews in America than in Israel, so my solution would be to move all of Israel to Texas (there's plenty of room for 5 million Jews) and give the much needed land back to the Palestinians. Then the Israelis could justifiably influence American politics in their favour and no one else in the world would care or suffer for it.

Fri, 2012-09-21 13:18 — Steve (Abbass) (not verified)

6000 years? You people do try it on. By normal maths it is only about 65 years since a bunch of Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe created modern Israel. Previous to that Jews, Christians and Muslims had lived in Palestine in peace for longer than a thousand years.

Thu, 2012-09-20 00:06 — Blackbadge (not verified)

No border between Syria and the West Bank? Not heard of the Golan Heights?

A 'postgraduate researcher' who can't be bothered to look up an atlas......we're all doomed.

Thu, 2012-09-20 10:31 — @DavidWearing (not verified)

Strange comment. The Golan Heights don't border the West Bank, and the Palestinians don't claim them (not least since they're part of Syria).

Its all Arabs though, right?

The thing about pro-Israel comments below the line is they tend to involve opportunistic spaghetti-throwing, ignorance, or the repetition of standard talking points. Its predictable enough, and I don't propose to spend much time engaging with it.

Wed, 2012-09-19 22:41 — Dougxxxxx (not verified)

And just for GRINS ...... let us consult the Bible ......
Israel's "claim" to Palestine is based entirely on War Crimes and GENOCIDE.
It is IMPROPER to compare Israel to the Nazis.
The CORRECT/CHRONOLOGICAL comparison is Nazis to Israelis:
The Nazis copied the Jewish "Manual" point by point
KILL THE SICK and CRIPPLED
Numbers c.5 v.2-4
KILL HOMOSEXUALS
Leviticus c.20 v.13 well, really the whole chapter
KILL ALL DISSIDENTS:
Exodus c.32 v.27
Numbers c.11 v.1-2
Numbers c.16 all
Numbers c.21 v.5-6
Numbers v.26 v.10
KILL anyone who engages in "DIVERSITY" or "INTEGRATION"
Numbers v25 v.4-8
Deuteronomy c.14 v.2
DEHUMANIZE and then EXTERMINATE ALL NON-MEMBERS:
Numbers c.21 v.03 Canaanites
Numbers c.21 v.24 Amorites
Numbers c.21 v.33-35 Bashan
Numbers c.31 all Midianites
Numbers c.32 v. more Amorites
Deuteronomy c.2 v.34 People of Heshbon
Deuteronomy c.3 v.6 really the whole chapter. threescore cities
Joshua c.12 A list of victims of Israeli GENOCIDE
Where are THEIR "holocaust" Memorials!
OCCUPY YOUR VICTIM'S DWELLINGS/LAND
Numbers c.21 v.25
Numbers c.32 v.39
Numbers c.33 v.53
(just to name a FEW)
GENOCIDE CODIFIED IN THEIR RELIGION
Numbers c.33 v.31-34
Deuteronomy c.7 v.2
Deuteronomy c.12 v.28-30
Deuteronomy c.20 v.11-16
TERRORISM CODIFIED IN THEIR RELIGION
Deuteronomy c.2 v.2
Deuteronomy c.7 v.1
Jews SELF-anointed "The CHOSEN People of GOD"
Nazis SELF-anointed "The GENETICALLY CHOSEN People of God".
And even TODAY:
April 10, 2008 "All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." This was the religious opinion issued one week ago by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank.

Thu, 2012-09-20 16:42 — willoyen

my reply to your post is a poor, emasculated version of a previous post which was censored by the content monitors of the site. Their sensibilties seemed to be hurt by my quote from the bible of what the men did against the wall of whom David left none alive. They seem to have their own extra-NS agenda.

Thu, 2012-09-20 16:35 — willoyen

thanks for your scholarship. We usually get only the islamophobic abuse of the Koran. I checked out one of your reference, the exodus 32:27 and found it exactly as you reported. However, Moses did seek atonement for the 'sin' of the murder of 3000 men. But then, Moses was an Egyptian. :)

Wed, 2012-09-19 22:39 — Dougxxxxx (not verified)

"We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise solution. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism." – General Yehoshafat Harkabi, Ma'ariv, 2 November 1973.

"The state of Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." -- From the diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956.

"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village." – Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha’aretz, April 4, 1969.

"Among ourselves, it must be clear that there is no place in the country for both peoples together. With the Arabs we shall not achieve our aim of being an independent people in this country. The only solution is Eretz-Israel, at least the west part of Eretz-Israel, without Arabs . . . And there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain . . ." –Joseph Weitz, entry in his diary for 1940 (quoted in his article: ‘A solution to the Refugee Problem: An Israeli State with a small Arab Minority’, published in Davar, 29 September, 1967.

Wed, 2012-09-19 21:30 — John Cheese (not verified)

"Palestinian" fify

Wed, 2012-09-19 17:42 — Lisa t (not verified)

This is an absurd comment Romney made about Palestenians.
He is already causing many head aches for USA already. With this ideas of his, USA might end up more in the war..

Tue, 2012-09-25 19:11 — Francine Last (not verified)